Revolutions are usually violent. Pray for the best, but prepare for the worst.

These are interesting replies.

I have strong opinions about local control, the ability of the citizens of a community to have a say in what the character of that community is. This concept of local control, as opposed to Federal imposition, is a major component of The Revolution. So what happens when some of the libertarian concepts of private property rights come up against the choices of a community to develop land use policies? Surely, not even the most ardent libertine among us would like it if someone bought the three houses next door in your pristine subdivision, raised them, and put up a lead smelting plant. But if the investor has the money and buys the property, what can you do? What should the local government do? Do you act against your principles to block the development of the plant? Personally, I respect private property rights based off the predetermined restraints of the zoning under which the property was purchased (calm down people, breath, I can hear it now “That Commander Yo MOFO is a God Damn socialist!”). When a buyer purchases a piece of property they usually understand the current zoning. Now if a municipality comes in and says we are going to downzone your property so you can’t develop. That is a violation of your property rights. Conversely, when the same buyer goes and tries to change an Agricultural zoning to a commercial zoning I have a problem with that as well. The buyer bought the land with a contract in place, the zoning laws; this is an agreement between the civic desires of the community and the property owner and should be respected.

These are tough questions undoubtedly. Private property is the essence from which much of our Freedom stems. We can all agree on the vile nature of eminent domain to increase the property/sales tax revenue, recently used around my hometown of Fort Collins, Colorado. Eminent domain is often quite different than acting as a community of individuals to develop reasonably with planning, without the violation of the private property rights of individuals. This can be achieved through respect of business contracts by both the land owner/buyer and the local government. If you don’t like what your community is doing, I guess you can always move to Houston. I hear the traffic is really great and its super easy to get across town!

I can’t wait until the abortion topic comes up…

Yo

Our time is NOW.

In our state the Growth Management Act has forced high density growth inside the cites while rural areas are stymied and restricted so that landowners are not allowed to subdivide, but taxes are too high to afford to keep the small home on 5 acres. It is hard on the school districts since the growth is in some parts of the district and not in others.

"Reckless development of our open spaces" - there is no such thing. County and city governments love development because it means more tax revenue and also mitigation fees for roads and schools. Open spaces are either private property or are national parks or forests.
Wilderness areas are a way for the government to gain control of vast areas of natural resources. When we are 3 trillian dollars in debt, what do you think is collateral for that debt? I expect to see Chinese mining companies in the Rockies.

I am not sure if my views are incorrect, but I often see our support for Ron Paul as a signal that we want to more or less "hit the rewind button". I mean, I don't see us moving in a new direction as much as saying we want to restore the country back to pre-party politics where rights of individuals were the focus and not factions.

One of the dangers of a movement like this is the animosity that can arise when we move from saying, "We need more freedom," to saying, "Here is what we should do with that freedom." With such a wide variety of viewpoints represented among Ron Paul's supporters, I'm afraid that if we stray from the political message, the infighting will start.

Our political message implies that we must all take on more personal responsibility for the choices we make. If we go much beyond that, the bad guys may be able to "divide and conquer" once again. I certainly hope we can maintain a congenial atmosphere and focus on areas of agreement, but the recent history of freedom-oriented political movements is not that encouraging.

If you hate urban sprawl, you need to check your premises. The evolution towards civilization and freedom is an evolution toward private property and privacy. Urban sprawl is a migration of people to an environment of their liking, where neighbors are not too close for comfort. I don't like the looks of cookie-cutter developments either, but obviously a lot of people like living in them, so I am fine with that.

The premise you need to check is your urge to tell others what they can do with their own money and property. People who most oppose development are usually those who live at the edge of the last development and want to preserve their view of someone else's property. What they fail to address is that their own houses would never have been built under the rules they now want to impose on others.

If you really want to preserve the view, buy up the land and then don't build on it.

I understand you're not advocating the rules that these pressure groups are trying to enact across our land, but I don't agree with giving them the philosophical upper hand. Most of them reach their position based on their belief that there are too many people anyway, and that's nihilism.

We've come a long way from huddling in caves, depending on the warmth of the herd to survive and having the most obnoxious and aggressive among us rule over us. The push is outward, as it should be.

Maybe even a little more fundamental for a lifestyle of freedom would be staying out of debt, having savings and some food storage put away for a rainy day, and making sure you're able to protect yourself and your family.

By focusing on savings, the materialism of financing the monster house--and the other lifestyle purchases that need to attend such a purchase to remain consistent in your public appearance, i.e., the Audi in your garage--would take a back seat to financial security. Also, why would you want to spend $20/day on a long commute when you could be living closer to work and pocketing that extra cash? Frugality is a lifestyle that would benefit us all in a multitude of ways.

The simple act of putting some food aside in storage nearly forces a family to figure out how to use it. If you've got 20 buckets of wheat kicking around, it would be stupid not to know how to make food out of it. Grinding wheat and making bread out of it is not only a great preparedness activity, but also, if done on a regular basis, helps save money, reduces packaging disposal problems, improves health, and fosters a sense of self-sufficiency. Such Franklin-esque principles of self-sufficiency and familial industry have helped America to go the distance.

Owning and knowing how to use firearms also builds a strong sense of self-sufficiency and freedom. Being able to defend yourself, and others, knocks the wind out of the victim mentality so prevalent in our society today. It helps us move away from reliance on government, and toward a dependence on ourselves and the God who sustains us. We become the new center of power, while government fades into a lesser, though still important, role.

If we can engender such lifestyle choices in the majority of Americans, then we are well on our way to maintaining not only our freedom, but also American resiliency in the face of any crisis--natural, political or economic.

And like our Founders Did Pledging Your wealth, your life, and your sacred honor!!! Otherwise you are not doing enough